Unfortunately my POS Macbook Pro eat part of my post (it randomly shuts off due to a failed battery what a POS), so I'll try to get back on my original train of thought here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diana Collins

The broadcasters are NOT hostile towards Aereo...they are terrified by it's business model. If the court holds that Aereo is not reqired to pay retransmission fees, then EVERY cable and satellite system in the country will adopt the same approach.

First of all, satellite can't, because they have to distribute with a single stream. Secondly, cable could do it, in theory, but it would require a separate VOD stream for every single sub watching a local channel, which in and of itself would be extremely bandwidth intensive. The middle of the network would be insane, in terms of bandwidth requirements, especially during something like the Super Bowl, with most of the customers in a given area all watching copies of the same thing. And then they'd have to build an antenna farm like Aereo's, but on a way bigger scale. The bottom line is that even if they could engineer something like that, it would end up costing far more than the retransmission fees do in the first place. The broadcasters really have nothing to worry about.

Quote:

There is no such thing as "free TV" - either advertisers pay for it, or you do (or, more commonly, a bit of both).

There is no such thing as free TV, but plenty of people still watch the commercials, and yes, some content is moving off to cable.

As recently as 2010 they passed the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (currently in the House for reauthorization) which imposed the "carry one, carry all" requirement on satellite operators (in order to carry ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX they must also carry EVERY channel that asks and can deliver a signal to the POP - and pay for the privledge).

As recently as 2010 they passed the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (currently in the House for reauthorization) which imposed the "carry one, carry all" requirement on satellite operators (in order to carry ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX they must also carry EVERY channel that asks and can deliver a signal to the POP - and pay for the privledge).

That is currently the law now, except channels that demand carriage under must carry cannot also demand a retransmission fee.

If they allowed must-carry stations to also charge a retransmission fee, that would be ridiculous. Rates would then go through the roof, and I think that would be the straw to break the cable companies' backs

...First of all, satellite can't, because they have to distribute with a single stream. Secondly, cable could do it, in theory, but it would require a separate VOD stream for every single sub watching a local channel, which in and of itself would be extremely bandwidth intensive...

Depends on what (legally) makes Aereo different from what cable and satellite operators are doing now, and how that is recognized and written into the Court's decision. At a minimum, they could do exactly what Aereo is doing, including using the internet to delivery the content. Perhaps satellite might have a problem, since they have a higher percentage of households with slow or no broadband service in their customer base, but cable could do it quite easily (or at least as easily as Aereo). Bandwidth consumption is as much a problem for Aereo as anyone else. Not to mention the possibility, if Aereo's service were to catch on, of the cable operators and other ISPs throttling Aereo's traffic to an unacceptably slow rate.

The more one looks at it, and plays out the long term ramifications, the more Aereo seems like a short term solution.

Depends on what (legally) makes Aereo different from what cable and satellite operators are doing now, and how that is recognized and written into the Court's decision. At a minimum, they could do exactly what Aereo is doing, including using the internet to delivery the content. Perhaps satellite might have a problem, since they have a higher percentage of households with slow or no broadband service in their customer base, but cable could do it quite easily (or at least as easily as Aereo). Bandwidth consumption is as much a problem for Aereo as anyone else. Not to mention the possibility, if Aereo's service were to catch on, of the cable operators and other ISPs throttling Aereo's traffic to an unacceptably slow rate.

The more one looks at it, and plays out the long term ramifications, the more Aereo seems like a short term solution.

The whole point of Aereo, and the reason that it is legal under current law is that each subscriber gets their own fee. That's the whole point behind Aereo, and why they can legally do what they are doing.

If they used the internet, they would have to replace almost all of the STBs out there with IP-capable boxes, and then it would still use the same amount of bandwidth, as every user would still need their own feed. It just doesn't scale. No matter what format it gets to the consumer in, it doesn't scale.

Cable companies are far less incented to do this than Aereo, as Aereo doesn't pay for the last mile bandwidth, whereas if Comcast goes to an Aereo-like solution (imagine scaling Aereo for tens of millions of users- WHOA), then they have to pay for the additional bandwidth, as they forced the change, not the consumer.

With satellite, many users don't have fast enough internet or a good enough network or the right hardware to pull this off. If it was optional, the adoption rate would be low, and it would still end up costing just about as much, if not more, to do with kludgy work-around than it would to just pay the retrans fees. The only thing that broadcasters should be worried about is the satellite companies going out and putting antennas up, but Aereo has nothing to do with that.

The bottom line is that making a kludgy Aereo-like hackaround is going to cost more than just paying retransmission fees. There's no way around that.

The whole point of Aereo, and the reason that it is legal under current law is that each subscriber gets their own fee. That's the whole point behind Aereo, and why they can legally do what they are doing.

You have to stop saying it is legal under current law as this case would not have gotten to the SC if your statement were so obviously true. Your not on the SC so your option on the law means nothing as does my option. 9 people will make that decision about this law, not you, or me, or anybody else.

You have to stop saying it is legal under current law as this case would not have gotten to the SC if your statement were so obviously true. Your not on the SC so your option on the law means nothing as does my option. 9 people will make that decision about this law, not you, or me, or anybody else.

You have to admit, what Aereo is doing is legal for the time being...otherwise they wouldn't be in operation right now doing their initial roll out.
If what they are doing right now were illegal, I would think they'd have a cease & desist order thrown at them.

__________________The Man Prayer: I'm a man ...... I can change ...... If I have to ...... I guess.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You have to admit, what Aereo is doing is legal for the time being...otherwise they wouldn't be in operation right now doing their initial roll out.

That's irrevocably flawed logic. It denies the possibility of people violating the law - an assertion that is patently absurd. Incorporation and granting of certification to collect taxes doesn't certify the legality of the business conducted. And the specific matter of the legality of this business is not yet through the legal process to determine whether it is legal or not. The reality is that if the SCOTUS finds that what Aereo is doing is a violation, they're not only going to have to stop doing it, but that ratifies any and all civil lawsuits that will be initiated by the local broadcasters whose signals Aereo is retransmitting, something that wouldn't be possible if what Aereo is doing isn't a violation until the SCOTUS rules against them. The fact that the local broadcasters won't be able to collect on those claims, because Aereo will be Chapter 7, doesn't obviate the fact that what they were doing was indeed a violation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve614

If what they are doing right now were illegal, I would think they'd have a cease & desist order thrown at them.

The broadcasters have already sent cease and desist orders to Aereo, but of course, to be effective they must be court orders. Isn't the refusal by the courts to grant a C&D is part of what's being appealed? UPDATED: Actually there was at least one C&D (court) order, but it was set aside, as part of the appeals process, which - again - is not yet over.

That's irrevocably flawed logic. It denies the possibility of people violating the law - an assertion that is patently absurd. Incorporation and granting of certification to collect taxes doesn't certify the legality of the business conducted. And the specific matter of the legality of this business is not yet through the legal process to determine whether it is legal or not. The reality is that if the SCOTUS finds that what Aereo is doing is a violation, they're not only going to have to stop doing it, but that ratifies any and all civil lawsuits that will be initiated by the local broadcasters whose signals Aereo is retransmitting, something that wouldn't be possible if what Aereo is doing isn't a violation until the SCOTUS rules against them. The fact that the local broadcasters won't be able to collect on those claims, because Aereo will be Chapter 7, doesn't obviate the fact that what they were doing was indeed a violation.

The broadcasters have already sent cease and desist orders to Aereo, but of course, to be effective they must be court orders. Isn't the refusal by the courts to grant a C&D is part of what's being appealed? UPDATED: Actually there was at least one C&D (court) order, but it was set aside, as part of the appeals process, which - again - is not yet over.

You have to stop saying it is legal under current law as this case would not have gotten to the SC if your statement were so obviously true. Your not on the SC so your option on the law means nothing as does my option. 9 people will make that decision about this law, not you, or me, or anybody else.

You're saying they never had a lawyer look at what they were doing? Yeah right. They designed it to comply with the law. If the Supreme Court makes the right decision, they will find Aereo legal based on them finding a loophole in the law, and will defer to Congress to re-write the law if they want to help their campaign donors who represent the big networks and screw Aereo by closing that loophole. But that is Congress's decision, not the court's.

You're saying they never had a lawyer look at what they were doing? Yeah right. They designed it to comply with the law. If the Supreme Court makes the right decision, they will find Aereo legal based on them finding a loophole in the law, and will defer to Congress to re-write the law if they want to help their campaign donors who represent the big networks and screw Aereo by closing that loophole. But that is Congress's decision, not the court's.

You think in a new type of business any lawyer can know for sure that it is legal, not even close, just look at the first VCRs, it did take the SC to say it was legal, you don't think Sony had good lawyers ?

You have to admit, what Aereo is doing is legal for the time being...otherwise they wouldn't be in operation right now doing their initial roll out.
If what they are doing right now were illegal, I would think they'd have a cease & desist order thrown at them.

Isn't it legal because the lower court ruled in their favor?
The only way for it to become illegal is for the SC to overturn that ruling or for congress to change some things.

What seems most strange is that you seem not to realize that the explanations in every rationalization you post in Aereo's defense applies just as readily to those who filed cease and desist letters against Aereo.

..It just doesn't scale. No matter what format it gets to the consumer in, it doesn't scale....

...The bottom line is that making a kludgy Aereo-like hackaround is going to cost more than just paying retransmission fees. There's no way around that.

Both of these statements are no less true when speaking of Aereo itself (including the characterization of what Aereo does as a "kludgy hackaround."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigg

You're saying they never had a lawyer look at what they were doing?....

Do you think the broadcasters don't have good lawyers? Don't you think they believe they can win this case? Which means that they believe Aereo is violating the law. There have been some court decisions against Aereo, so at least some judges agree that what Aereo is doing is an infringement of copyright protections.

Despite your insistence that there is only one way to interpret the law, there are, in fact, multiple points of view. Reasonable people can look at the facts and come to different conclusions.

Despite your insistence that there is only one way to interpret the law, there are, in fact, multiple points of view. Reasonable people can look at the facts and come to different conclusions.

This is actually very true in the Aereo case. It has been ruled on differently by two different courts, one that it's legal and one that it's not. So, the law has been interpreted differently, and it is both legal and illegal for Aereo to operate, depending on which part of the country you're in.

So, just about everyone who has commented on the legality of it is technically right for now.

Don't you think they believe they can win this case? Which means that they believe Aereo is violating the law.

I believe the opposite. CBS and FOX believe they can LOSE the case. That is why they are making stupid threats about moving the networks to cable. I think they view Aereo as a real threat who has the ability to crush their business by using a loophole in the law that may or may not ever get closed. Broadcast TV already isn't what it once was and Aereo has the potential to be a huge disruption only furthering the inevitable end of broadcast TV.

__________________
A passing grade? Like a C? Why don't I just get pregnant at a bus station!

I believe the opposite. CBS and FOX believe they can LOSE the case. That is why they are making stupid threats about moving the networks to cable. I think they view Aereo as a real threat who has the ability to crush their business by using a loophole in the law that may or may not ever get closed. Broadcast TV already isn't what it once was and Aereo has the potential to be a huge disruption only furthering the inevitable end of broadcast TV.

Let me see if I've got this straight--Aereo, which exists to bring broadcast, and only broadcast, TV to people who want it and are living in the right place to be entitled to receive it, is going to help bring about the end of broadcast TV by increasing the number of viewers?

Let me see if I've got this straight--Aereo, which exists to bring broadcast, and only broadcast, TV to people who want it and are living in the right place to be entitled to receive it, is going to help bring about the end of broadcast TV by increasing the number of viewers?

I don't think that is the issue, the Cable systems pay the networks for re-transmission, if Aereo should win than the cable type co.s may be able to get out of paying money to the networks, that would cost them.

Remember we have a fluid legal system in our country, in the 50s ATT was legal, than they became not so legal and had to break up, Abortion was illegal in many states, then in 1973 it became legal in all states (Roe vs Wade), even Amazon.com was doing legal business with their one-click checkout , then got sued by someone because their business had used this one-click checkout before Amazon, this case is so ridiculous (IMHO) I have not followed it as I go nuts thinking about it.
The point being the USA does not have a fixed legal system for things that have never been decided in court, and also for thing that were decided in court, that later congress changed.
Two things I know for sure you can't start a business to rob banks, and with you getting the proper license from your town, you can sell lemonade on your lawn.

You think in a new type of business any lawyer can know for sure that it is legal, not even close, just look at the first VCRs, it did take the SC to say it was legal, you don't think Sony had good lawyers ?

They would have had to have been pretty sure to let it continue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

What seems most strange is that you seem not to realize that the explanations in every rationalization you post in Aereo's defense applies just as readily to those who filed cease and desist letters against Aereo.

Not at all. The networks are just having a hissy fit because the law had a giant loophole in it, and they don't like change, so they are grasping at straws to find something to bring Aereo down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diana Collins

Both of these statements are no less true when speaking of Aereo itself (including the characterization of what Aereo does as a "kludgy hackaround."

Aereo is totally a kludgy hackaround to exploit a loophole in the law. But that loophole is in the law, so Aereo is legal. If the broadcasters want the law changed, then they are going to need to throw some more cash to Congress to buy themselves a new law that would force Aereo to pay retrans fees.

Quote:

Do you think the broadcasters don't have good lawyers? Don't you think they believe they can win this case? Which means that they believe Aereo is violating the law. There have been some court decisions against Aereo, so at least some judges agree that what Aereo is doing is an infringement of copyright protections.

They are delusional if they think they are right. I think they are throwing a big hissy fit and know it. Really, what they are doing is taking the first steps to then go to Congress and ask for the law to be changed, and they will have the background to say that they have gone through the process to determine what the existing law said.

Quote:

Despite your insistence that there is only one way to interpret the law, there are, in fact, multiple points of view. Reasonable people can look at the facts and come to different conclusions.

In order to support the networks' case, you have to go by the "spirit" of the law, not the "letter" of the law. Well, that's not how laws work, they work based on exactly what is written, not some interpretation of what they might have been meant to mean, even though they don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lessd

I don't think that is the issue, the Cable systems pay the networks for re-transmission, if Aereo should win than the cable type co.s may be able to get out of paying money to the networks, that would cost them.

Not the way the law is written today. And if it were re-written, our corrupt Congress would likely tilt it far in favor of the networks, and against Aereo. At least I would hope that they would have the common sense to write into the law that Aereo automatically gets the ability to get a restrans agreement at the lowest price that the network offered it to any other provider.

Let me see if I've got this straight--Aereo, which exists to bring broadcast, and only broadcast, TV to people who want it and are living in the right place to be entitled to receive it, is going to help bring about the end of broadcast TV by increasing the number of viewers?

No. They are going to bring the end of broadcast TV by eliminating carriage fees. If Aereo doesn't pay, cable companies won't pay either. They will simply copy the technology. Likely, they will even charge us MORE for the new "feature".

__________________
A passing grade? Like a C? Why don't I just get pregnant at a bus station!

No. They are going to bring the end of broadcast TV by eliminating carriage fees. If Aereo doesn't pay, cable companies won't pay either. They will simply copy the technology. Likely, they will even charge us MORE for the new "feature".

So are the cable companies going to come up with a new type of set-top box so they can "internet" the local channels to their subscribers? Will it replace the ones people have to rent from them now?

Trying to integrate that with the current boxes and cable supplied DVRs would be a support nightmare, I'd think, especially if it meant 2 cable company remote controls to have to keep up with.

They can't plan on all of their customers being savvy enough to hook a computer up to their TVs.

Not at all. The networks are just having a hissy fit because the law had a giant loophole in it, and they don't like change, so they are grasping at straws to find something to bring Aereo down.

That's nothing more than a self-serving bit of claptrap with no basis in the facts, the law, or the industry.

You want Aereo to win. Message received. Stop trying to make it sound - even to yourself - like they have got to win. All you're doing, in doing so, is setting yourself up for a much bigger disappointment, and a much steeper climb down the hill of your previous comments, should they lose. This isn't morality or religion we're talking about - this is business. And so the Kipling maxim applies: "Trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too."

...In order to support the networks' case, you have to go by the "spirit" of the law, not the "letter" of the law. Well, that's not how laws work, they work based on exactly what is written, not some interpretation of what they might have been meant to mean, even though they don't...

In what country??? Verdicts are rendered, on a regular basis, on the basis of the intent of the law makers. Particularly in the Supreme Court, the intent of the law is far more important than the letter. If the letter of the law were all that mattered, computers could decide cases. It is "some interpretation of what they [the lawmakers] might have been meant to mean" that is the purpose of our legal system.

In what country??? Verdicts are rendered, on a regular basis, on the basis of the intent of the law makers. Particularly in the Supreme Court, the intent of the law is far more important than the letter. If the letter of the law were all that mattered, computers could decide cases. It is "some interpretation of what they [the lawmakers] might have been meant to mean" that is the purpose of our legal system.

The ACA is a good example of what you just said, as the SC said that a penalty that the ACA calls for in plane English is not a penalty at all, it is a tax, congress just did not know the difference when they passed the ACA, but the SC did know what congress meant as a penalty would not have been legal, so the SC changed the word in the ACA law from penalty to tax.
Our legal is great, is it not !!!

So are the cable companies going to come up with a new type of set-top box so they can "internet" the local channels to their subscribers? Will it replace the ones people have to rent from them now?

Trying to integrate that with the current boxes and cable supplied DVRs would be a support nightmare, I'd think, especially if it meant 2 cable company remote controls to have to keep up with.

They can't plan on all of their customers being savvy enough to hook a computer up to their TVs.

The STB part of it is the least of the issues. It could be seamlessly integrated to the user. But, as I have explained in previous posts, it makes no sense from a network standpoint. It would cost tens of millions if not more in network architecture and bandwidth build-outs to save millions on carriage fees. The math just doesn't work out on this luny idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

That's nothing more than a self-serving bit of claptrap with no basis in the facts, the law, or the industry.

You want Aereo to win. Message received. Stop trying to make it sound - even to yourself - like they have got to win. All you're doing, in doing so, is setting yourself up for a much bigger disappointment, and a much steeper climb down the hill of your previous comments, should they lose. This isn't morality or religion we're talking about - this is business. And so the Kipling maxim applies: "Trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too."

I have no hill to climb down if the lose. My personal opinion is that they will lose. However, the court either follows the existing law, as written, and Aereo wins, or they in effect legislate from the bench and bow to the corporate interests, and the networks win. If the court wants to follow the law, then they have to rule in favor of Aereo, as the law is extremely clear in what it says. I find it abhorrent that the administration, whom I originally supported but have cooled off to post-2008, supports Obama's corporate buddies in the business, and not the law. He, as a lawyer, should know better, although maybe he hasn't actually reviewed all the law himself (I hope he hasn't considering that he has far more important things to do).

The court should give an option to Congress, like they did with Net Neutrality, except here the corrupt corporate interests would be on the other side of the legislation, to go and change the law, but they should follow the law as written in their decision and deem Aereo legal under current law. Then Aereo and the networks can go battle it out in Congress. The networks will probably keep throwing hissy fits all over the place, but in reality, it doesn't really affect them. If anything, Aereo helps them out a bit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diana Collins

In what country??? Verdicts are rendered, on a regular basis, on the basis of the intent of the law makers. Particularly in the Supreme Court, the intent of the law is far more important than the letter. If the letter of the law were all that mattered, computers could decide cases. It is "some interpretation of what they [the lawmakers] might have been meant to mean" that is the purpose of our legal system.

If the law says what the law says, then that's what it says. Not what someone might have meant it to say. Computers aren't that sophisticated yet. And what the law says is that Aereo is legal in the United States.